GOD

What some people call “GOD”,
I call “An unreachable state of total human conciousness in which
all of mankind learns to live in peace and harmony amongst itself”.

Really!

What you call “An unreachable state of total human conciousness in which
all of mankind learns to live in peace and harmony amongst itself”
I call “An atrocious chunk of pretencious bullshit”.

/Thanatos - previously known as “Guest”

That’s so harsh!

‘Mankind’, I hope you didn’t find my initial reaction too demeaning. It’s kindof become convention to leave something open in starter posts, rather than state something, then expect a discussion to follow. A question, for example?

Nevertheless, I found your description for that vacuum within much of humanity’s metaphysics, quite accurate.

You could go further by observing how the authorities that are charged with projecting those ideals, and often demanding obedience and worship to God, are in fact forcing those ideals into becoming idolised. A good thing, you may say, reminding believers of their duty to others, their responsibilities.

Is the middle-man, that is God, necessary any more? When Nietzsche smote God, did those described ideals become something to be confronted head on, rather than adhered to through fear of a higher authority?

‘Mankind’, I recommend you become a user instead of a peddling guest.

Mankind stated:

I’m not sure if I understand. First of all, why is it unreachable? Secondly, if it is unreachable than how is it that all of mankind learns to live in peace and harmony amongst itself? Amongst itself…???..so we are in this unreachable state? But the unreachable state is a state of total HUMAN consciousness, so isn’t it in us - not us in it?

Further elaboration of your point would be great.

Thanatos stated:

You would do better to inquire into what people mean by what they say instead of assuming. Even if you could know 100% for sure what Mankind meant, what good does it do to say the above? It’s just your way of releaving stress due to some experience in your life or your reading of his post. But his post isn’t aimed at hurting anyone, so don’t be so…as Pangloss put it…Harsh. Otherwise you’ll get a berating. Lastly, if you want to be harsh, there is a place for it, it’s called the Rant Forum. If you would like to debate with me on this topic in a vulgar and heated fashion, just make a thread in the Rant Forum and I’ll see you there.

Try to remember, that we are here to discuss, not to label or to demean. There is also this great thing called a disclaimer, it would do you some good to read it. Many disclaimers are very similar, so you need only read one to get a jist for what they are all about, since they tend to be kinda lengthy.

What’s your take?

“God” to me implies a father figure type tyrant whose will is imposed on all things in existence while still having human characteristics like jealousy and hate these traits seem unfitting for a perfect being which leads me to believe that the idea of god has been distorted by people wishing to oppress others with a treat of a wrathful figure that watches all and punishes those who do not follow the rules.I prefer to believe in a higher power in the universe that conspires to help a man achieve what he wants an all that is needed to invoke this force is to be aware of its influence on the things around you, birds, trees, streetlights, everything carries signs that help a person.personally I feel it’s influence in “vibes” or waves or thoughts that pop into my head suddenly it is best not to second guess oneself and to move quickly in the direction that has been shown.any way it seems to always work for me.

Negative social sediments enrooted in every single person, family, neighboorhood, city, state and governments are what’s keeping this earth from becoming a utopia. Some are fools to think that real change will come from above when in fact the biggest contribution a person can make to the world is to live in peace and harmony with himself thus having a lasting impact on his surrounding. And yes, it’s hard to let go from the interferences of one’s surrounding because they are flawed by the same negativity. It’s only when a man or woman truly surpass themselves as human beings and augment their conciousness to the next level, that change in their own lives as well as their surroundings can occur. And yes, even synagogues, churches and mosques sometimes miss this point.
It’s UNREACHABLE because even us talking about it here in these forums is something that has a negative effect on certain “unaware” people and thus interfering with a certain balance that needs to be attained if we want to reach a state of utopia.

so you’re saying that ‘god’ is an ideal state and not an actual being? and thus not a thing itself in existence…
‘god’ then is merely a state of what one would deem to be ‘perfection’.

Can we keep wooly terms with wavering definitions, terms like ‘perfection’ out of this? The ‘God’ that Mankind is describing, and the ideals the word represents throws a very interesting question regarding how people relate to each other, what is wrong in those relations and the use of religion and agents such as ‘God’ to project and advertise those ideals.

I take that back actually, jedi_pocky. ‘Perfection’ is in some respects what the ‘God’ vacuum in human relations is all about. I think my objection just came from how words like ‘perfection’ and ‘utopia’ (and people’s attempts to define them) can hijack these sort of discussion just as they’re getting interesting.

I’d say the answer your question, jedi_pocky is Yes. At least in my view. That is effectively what ‘God’ is or has been since modernist/post-modernist revolutions took place and put religion in a box. I think cosmo/Mankind’s description of ‘God’ gets religion back out of the box it has been put in, and exposes it as a force for good. A key part of the public arena. Since the September 11th attacks and the run-up to the current war on Iraq, the influence of religious voices and leaders of the Anglican church and the Orthodox Jewish synagogues have been increasing. Voices like that of Rabbi Jonathon Sacks and Archbishop Rowan Williams have gained far greater exposure in the public sphere, and are increasingly popular. I do not think this has anything to do with the idea that the truths religion gives us have somehow materialised into becoming true again in popular thought. Rather, the emphasis on human dignity that religion brings, this concept of ‘God’ as Mankind/cosmo decribed it, is becoming increasingly popular as we come to terms with the new social political and economic truths of the day. It comes from a craving for identity, from a desire to manage globlisation for the good.

I just think it would be ashame if this discussion became sidetracked by semantics, by the use of words like ‘utopia’ and ‘perfection’ (words which I used myself with great regularity - look at past forums, the 'perfection ones in particular) which may distract us from the interesting themes talked about in this thread.

Pangloss my man, I couldn’t have said it better. Right on! :slight_smile:

I must admit that I am interested to read what people have to say about the nature of God, as there seems to be a large number of people on this thread saying “I think that God is like this,” indeed the opening post was along those lines.

The main problem I have with this is that these people seem to be saying that they define God to have these attributes, which would appear to be tantamount to creating their own God, whereupon He is no longer God, but a human creation, and the argument about his nature appears to collapse to “I have given Him this nature.”

As a result, I would like to ask if there is any consensus in the various scriptures of worlkd religions about the nature of God (or gods, although as a Christian I believe in one God), as that may provide a more satisfactory answer to Mankind’s post.

The main danger here is that people will confuse the scripture of a religion with the teaching of those people who claim to agree with it, which may be the cause of zaffel’s thinking. Certainly the Christian Bible tells of a God who is a loving father, who will punish us if we mistreat him, but who created his rules for our own eventual benefit, is forgiving and will always welcome us back if we wish to return.

Just getting back to the original post…

Is that to say that ‘some people’ are mistaking the concept of a perfect socially compatable conciousness as being an actual omnipresent consciousness?

It really beakons the question, who are ‘some people’, though I would want that to never be answered as it would ruin one of the few existing religoius questions that are all concept with no bias. Good statement ‘Mankind’! :sunglasses:

GOD or DOG or whatever u want to call IT or HE or indeed SHE, does it really matter? It is whatever we want it to be, call it a need for men to lean on something supposedely mega powerful, fairer and above human frailty, an ideal parent, something that can make u feel less alone, a feeling of coming home even for those who never knew what a home was…
Does it exist in reality or just in our “needy” minds?
As a Catholic (and pls don’t spray me with holywater… :blush: ), I was taught to believe that it was definitely a Him and that definitely existed somewhere in Heaven (which is always Up and never Down).
Never seen him or her, don’t think I ever will, but it doesn’t place demands on my life and yet I like to think I have HIS/HER/ITS approval in the way I conduct myself. Are we brainwashed to think this way? Dunno… Does it matter? Don’t think so, after all it doesn’t ask for much, in fact all the shitty rules were created by men in his name and I hate to think of all the conflict men have created throughout the times out of greed and stupidity arguiing that was all in the name of this supposedely GOD.
If I was GOD I would be pretty pissed off with the all thing. I wish I could email God’s Headquaters and ask the burning question in everyone’s minds… What’s HIS/HER/ITS star sign? I personally think he’s an Aries! :unamused:

Quote:
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet." William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet

god to me is that thing that is greater then that which i can concieve to actually put the charecteristics of god into a book ie. the Bible has to allow God to fall into words that have definite meaning. which if your following where im going cant be done accuratley.

ddomer64 stated:

Who was it that said that? I can’t remember at the moment…you know “God is that which no greater can be conceived…” wasn’t it Aquinas? I can’t seem to place it correctly.

Anyway, this idea presents some serious trials and tribulations. 1) as time goes on we are conceiving greater and greater things. So is God something we at one point couldn’t think greater of, and we may one day catch up to him - or - is his power growing as our conceiving gets more complex? 2) Playing God off as the greatest thing we can imagine causes an incongruency between each individual, for we all have our own ideas about what is greater or more important. 3) making god the greatest thing we can conceive has within it a error of taking logic too far. It’s in our nature to project our human attributes onto everything else, so why not God, except that we take our attributes and extend them as far as we can. You know, we tend to think that being nice is good, humans can be nice but God is the nicest (all loving). Human beings have a will and we tend to think we have control over our lives, a power, so we say that God has the all power and can control all things as God pleases.

I also think you make a conceptual error, which is actually fitting to my point, in your example about the Bible needing to allow God to fall into words to have a definite meaning. Yet there is no accepted general meaning about anything of God that all religious people have kept up. Furthermore, isn’t it God who had to make the Bible be written in order to get God’s message across? Why didn’t God make it clearer? What exactly is the definite meaning of God? According to which religious text? and why?

The error is fitting because I believe that people made the whole thing up. All religions are just grand fairy tales and hence why they needed definite meanings to convince people until they realized that errors in terminology and meaning would always be present. Hence they moved to the notion that God couldn’t properly be expressed by words, but that these religious texts are as close as our words can come to explaining God.

What’s your take?

It was St. Anselm, here’s a link to a simple version of the agrument.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/hilde/Philhandouts/anselm.html

We can also describe things we cannot properly concieve, like infinity, while still understanding the idea behind the concept.

didnt descartes claim somthing along those lines in his version of the ontological as well tho?

Sure, but he stole it from St. Anselm. Both Anselm and Descartes based their main argument for the existence of God on that definition and that ontological thesis.

I. God is defined as a being greater than all others.

II. There must be a being greater than all other beings.

III. Therefore, there must be a God.

A little more to it than that but that’s the basic argument. Sounds pretty silly if you ask me, but to an 11th century philosopher whose society and entire life was based around Catholicism and Christianity, I’m sure it made plenty of sense.